Balancing Weighted Caseload Metrics and Secondary Factors: Florida Supreme Court’s 2026–27 Certification of Judicial Need for Additional Judges

Balancing Weighted Caseload Metrics and Secondary Factors: Florida Supreme Court’s 2026–27 Certification of Judicial Need for Additional Judges

Case: In re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges, No. SC2025-1808 (Fla. Nov. 26, 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida (per curiam, all justices concurring)
Type of proceeding: Original proceeding under article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution (judicial administration, not an adversarial appeal).

I. Introduction

This opinion is part of the Florida Supreme Court’s annual constitutional duty to advise the Legislature on whether the number of judges in the state courts should be increased or decreased. Under article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution, the Court must:

  • apply uniform criteria to determine judicial need;
  • evaluate both trial courts and district courts of appeal (DCAs); and
  • certify its “findings and recommendations” to the Legislature before the next regular session.

For fiscal year 2026–27, the Court:

  • certifies a need for 25 additional trial court judgeships (13 circuit judges and 12 county judges),
  • recommends no reduction in any existing circuit or county judgeships, and
  • certifies no need for additional district court of appeal judgeships, while acknowledging surplus capacity in the Second District Court of Appeal that the Legislature has begun to address by statute through attrition.

While this opinion does not decide a dispute between parties, it is significant in shaping the administration of justice in Florida. It refines, and re‑affirms, the governing principles about how judicial need is measured: a verified, objective weighted caseload methodology is the primary tool, but it must be tempered by qualitative “secondary factors” and by recognition of fiscal realities and related justice‑system impacts.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Core holdings and recommendations

The Court’s principal determinations for fiscal year 2026–27 are:

  • Trial courts
    • 13 additional circuit court judgeships are certified as needed.
    • 12 additional county court judgeships are certified as needed.
    • No reduction in existing circuit or county judgeships is recommended.
  • District courts of appeal
    • The weighted caseload methodology does not show a need for any additional DCA judgeships.
    • No DCA chief judge requested additional judgeships.
    • The Court continues to recognize surplus judicial capacity in the Second DCA, but notes that the Legislature has acted to reduce authorized judgeships there by attrition—allowing positions to be eliminated as they become vacant, without forcing any sitting judge out of office.

B. Where the new trial judgeships are certified

The appendix to the opinion allocates the 25 new trial judgeships as follows:

Circuit New Circuit Judges County New County Judges
1st Judicial Circuit 1 Walton County 1
2nd Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
3rd Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
4th Judicial Circuit 0 Duval County 3
5th Judicial Circuit 1 — 0
6th Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
7th Judicial Circuit 1 — 0
8th Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
9th Judicial Circuit 0 Orange County 2
10th Judicial Circuit 0 Highlands County 1
11th Judicial Circuit 0 Miami‑Dade County 3
12th Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
13th Judicial Circuit 0 Hillsborough County 1
14th Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
15th Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
16th Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
17th Judicial Circuit 0 — 0
18th Judicial Circuit 1 — 0
19th Judicial Circuit 1 — 0
20th Judicial Circuit 8 Lee County 1
Total 13 Total 12

The Court singles out the Twentieth Judicial Circuit (with eight new circuit judgeships) and Walton County (one county judge) as having particularly acute need, with workloads well above the judicial need thresholds identified in the 2024 judicial workload assessment and reaffirmed in the most recent data.

C. Relationship to the prior year’s certification

Using updated case weights, the Court’s December 2024 certification opinion had previously certified the need for 48 judgeships (23 circuit, 25 county). The Legislature responded by authorizing 37 trial court judgeships (22 circuit, 15 county) in the 2025 legislative session.8

The current opinion “builds on that foundation” in an incremental manner. It does not attempt to close the entire gap between calculated need and actual positions in a single year. Instead, it continues a step‑by‑step expansion of judicial capacity, expressly acknowledging:

  • the State’s fiscal climate and projected budget shortfalls, and
  • the operational and fiscal impacts on justice‑system partners (clerks, state attorneys, public defenders, etc.) when new judgeships are created.

III. Precedents, Authorities, and Legal Framework

A. Constitutional foundation: Article V, section 9

The opinion is grounded in article V, section 9 of the Florida Constitution, which the Court quotes in part. That provision requires:

  • the Supreme Court to establish uniform criteria by rule for determining:
    • the need for additional judges (other than Supreme Court justices),
    • the need for decreasing the number of judges, and
    • the need for increasing, decreasing, or redefining appellate districts and judicial circuits;
  • that, upon finding such a need, the Court must certify its findings and recommendations to the Legislature before the next regular session.

This constitutional structure:

  • recognizes the Supreme Court’s institutional expertise in assessing judicial workload and needs;
  • leaves the ultimate power to create or abolish judgeships with the Legislature, preserving separation of powers; and
  • creates a recurring, formal channel of communication between the judicial and legislative branches on court structure and resources.

B. Implementing rules: Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240

Article V, section 9 is implemented by Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.240, which the Court cites in several subsections:

  • Rule 2.240(b)(1)(A): directs that a verified, objective weighted caseload methodology be used as a primary means of assessing trial court judicial need.3
  • Rule 2.240(b)(1)(B), (c): recognize and describe “other factors” or “secondary factors” that may be used in determining judicial need—such as local conditions, population trends, geographic constraints, and other workload considerations.5
  • Rule 2.240(b)(2): prescribes similar methodology and criteria for district courts of appeal, focusing especially on the number of cases decided and on measures of efficiency and professionalism.

These rules codify the two‑tiered analytical model that dominates this opinion:

  1. a quantitative core (weighted caseload measures), supplemented by
  2. qualitative secondary factors (local conditions and administrative realities).

C. Prior certification opinion: In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges (2024)

The Court expressly references its prior opinion:

In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 407 So. 3d 1222 (Fla. 2024).

In that 2024 opinion the Court:

  • applied the newly updated case weights arising from the June 2024 workload assessment;
  • certified a need for 48 trial judgeships; and
  • explicitly adopted an incremental approach, citing the Legislature’s responsibility to balance “myriad state budget priorities with limited resources.”7

The present opinion:

  • reaffirms that incremental approach;
  • treats the 2025 legislative authorization of 37 judgeships as a partial implementation of that earlier certification; and
  • positions the 2026–27 certification as a “next step,” rather than as a standalone recalculation.

D. Statutory context and 2025 legislation

The opinion also references several statutory developments:

  • Chapter 2025‑202, Laws of Florida
    • amends section 26.031, Florida Statutes (which sets the number of circuit court judges in each circuit), and
    • amends section 34.022, Florida Statutes (which sets the number of county court judges in each county), to reflect the judgeships authorized for fiscal year 2025–26;8
    • amends section 35.06(2), Florida Statutes (2024), and creates section 35.06(7), Florida Statutes (2025), to reduce the number of authorized Second DCA judgeships by attrition.2
  • Chapter 2025‑198, Laws of Florida
    • contains the appropriation provisos funding:
      • the newly authorized trial judgeships (appropriations 2990, 2992, 3003A, 3005, 3007, 3012A), and
      • the two additional judgeships for the Sixth District Court of Appeal that were certified in the prior opinion (appropriations 2977, 2979, 2986A).8,10

These statutory references illustrate that:

  • the Legislature uses the Court’s certification as a key input in amending the structural statutes that define the number of judges, and
  • certification and appropriation are linked but distinct steps: one is a judicial recommendation, the other a legislative policy and budget decision.

IV. Legal Reasoning and Methodology

A. The weighted caseload methodology for trial courts

For trial courts, the Court continues to use a verified, objective weighted caseload methodology as the primary tool for assessing judicial need. In practical terms, this method involves:

  1. Assigning “case weights” to each type of case (e.g., felony, misdemeanor, civil, family, probate, juvenile).
    • Each weight represents the average judicial time required to resolve one case of that type.
  2. Applying those weights to forecasted case filings (the expected number of new cases in each category).
    • This yields the total projected judicial workload in hours or equivalent units.
  3. Converting the total workload into “full‑time‑equivalent” (FTE) judgeships.
    • The model factors in how much work a single judge can reasonably handle in a year, accounting for:
      • hearing and trial time,
      • order‑writing and research,
      • administrative duties, and
      • non‑case responsibilities (e.g., committee work, judicial education).
  4. Adjusting for other considerations (e.g., magistrates, hearing officers, and support staff), and then comparing the resulting FTE need to the number of existing judgeships in each circuit and county.

Importantly, the opinion notes that in June 2024 the judicial branch completed a new Judicial Workload Assessment, reevaluating and updating the case weights.4 Thus:

  • the 2025–26 certification opinion was the first major application of these new weights, and
  • the present opinion represents the second annual cycle using those updated, more refined metrics.

B. Secondary factors and the role of chief judges’ applications

The Court emphasizes that it does not rely on data alone. Each year, the chief judge of each judicial circuit submits a detailed judgeship needs application, explaining how local “secondary factors” affect the administration of justice. These factors, recognized by Rule 2.240(b)(1)(B) and (c), include:

  • Resource constraints
    • Case managers
      • Chief judges report that case managers are critical in:
        • implementing differentiated case management (triaging cases by complexity and urgency),
        • monitoring case progress, and
        • handling ministerial tasks so judges can focus on substantive legal and factual issues.
      • The current complement of case managers is described as “working at capacity,” with some assigned solely to one division, leaving other divisions without support.
    • Case management technology
      • The judicial branch has submitted a legislative budget request for critical case management technology, designed to work in tandem with additional judicial positions to improve efficiency.
    • Court interpreters
      • Growing demand for interpreters increases the time needed to conduct hearings and trials, thereby raising judicial workload even if the raw number of cases stays constant.
  • Demographic and caseload trends
    • Population growth in certain areas, often linked to increased filings in specific case types.
    • In some fast‑growing regions (notably the Twentieth Circuit and Walton County), this results in caseloads far above the threshold at which additional judges are generally considered necessary.
  • Specialized courts
    • Expansion of problem‑solving courts (e.g., drug courts, mental health courts, veterans’ courts) requires more intensive and continuous judicial engagement with participants than traditional dockets.
  • Complexity of cases
    • Chief judges report a trend toward greater complexity of filings, especially in civil and family cases, which increases the time per case even if filing numbers are static.
  • Geographic considerations
    • Number and distribution of branch courthouses that judges must cover.
    • Ensuring that there are enough judges to maintain reasonable physical and temporal access to justice across geographically large or dispersed circuits.

The Court uses these secondary factors:

  • to justify certifying additional judgeships even when the quantitative model alone might not strictly require them, and
  • to avoid recommending reductions where raw numbers suggest only marginal surplus, in light of local realities and non‑quantifiable burdens.

C. The incremental, fiscally conscious approach

A central theme of the opinion is the Court’s deliberate incrementalism in requesting new judgeships. Even though the weighted caseload methodology shows greater overall statewide need than the 25 additional trial judgeships certified here, the Court:

  • acknowledges that the State faces budget shortfalls in upcoming fiscal years, and
  • recognizes that new judgeships carry “operational and potential fiscal impacts for justice‑system partners” (clerks, state attorneys, public defenders, etc.).

Accordingly, rather than seeking to match the full calculated need in one step, the Court certifies a subset of that need, as it did in its 2024 opinion. This approach:

  • respects the Legislature’s obligation to allocate limited resources among competing statewide priorities, and
  • enhances the credibility and practicality of the Court’s recommendations by avoiding unrealistic or fiscally insensitive requests.

The opinion’s language—“this opinion represents the next incremental step in addressing trial court judicial need”—suggests an ongoing, multi‑year strategy rather than a one‑off adjustment.

D. Decision not to recommend any reduction in trial judgeships

The Court also examined whether it should certify a need to decrease the number of trial court judgeships in any areas. The weighted caseload methodology:

  • indicates only “limited areas with potential excess judicial capacity.”

However, the Court declines to recommend any reductions, for several interrelated reasons:

  1. Secondary factors cut against reductions
    • Even where data superficially suggests surplus capacity, factors such as:
      • case complexity,
      • geographic spread and courthouse locations,
      • the need to preserve access to justice, and
      • local operational conditions
      may mean that eliminating positions would undermine the courts’ ability to function effectively.
  2. Data limitations arising from new case weights
    • The Court notes that the new case weights were only recently adopted (June 2024), so there has not been enough time to develop a robust, multi‑year trend line confirming that any apparent surplus is sustained rather than transient.
    • As a result, the Court concludes the data are “insufficient to establish a consistent trend of surplus judicial capacity.”
  3. Institutional caution in eliminating judgeships
    • Once a judgeship is abolished, it can be difficult to restore quickly if it turns out that demand was underestimated.
    • This counsels caution and restraint, particularly in an environment where:
      • case demands are evolving, and
      • non‑quantitative burdens (like expanded problem‑solving courts and interpreter‑heavy dockets) continue to grow.

In short, the Court adopts an explicitly conservative stance regarding any downward adjustment in trial court judicial capacity, preferring to wait for more stable data and a fuller understanding of the effects of the new case weights and management reforms.

E. Methodology and reasoning for district courts of appeal

For DCAs, Rule 2.240(b)(2) prescribes a weighted caseload methodology “based primarily on the number of cases decided,” supplemented by factors related to workload, efficiency, effectiveness, and professionalism.

Applying that methodology, the Court finds:

  • no DCA has a demonstrated need for additional judgeships, and
  • no chief judge of a DCA submitted a request for more judgeships.

The Court therefore does not certify any additional DCA judgeships in this opinion.

However, the Court again draws attention to the Second District Court of Appeal, where:

  • the Court has previously recognized surplus judicial capacity, and
  • the Legislature has enacted chapter 2025‑202, sections 3 and 5, Laws of Florida, to reduce the number of statutorily authorized judgeships in that court through attrition, effective July 1, 2025.2

The Court expresses its appreciation that:

  • this reduction is to occur without requiring any sitting judge to vacate office involuntarily, and
  • the Legislature has funded the two additional Sixth DCA judgeships that the Court had previously certified.10

This part of the opinion illustrates:

  • the Court’s ongoing role in monitoring and signaling surplus capacity at the appellate level, and
  • the Legislature’s responsiveness in crafting a structural solution that respects judicial independence and tenure (via attrition, not forced removal).

V. Impact and Broader Significance

A. Practical impact on the circuits and counties receiving judges

The circuits and counties receiving new judgeships—particularly the Twentieth Circuit and Walton, Duval, Orange, Highlands, Miami‑Dade, Hillsborough, and Lee Counties—can expect:

  • Increased hearing and trial capacity, reducing delays in scheduling.
  • Shorter time to disposition for both civil and criminal cases.
  • Improved clearance rates (the percentage of resolved cases relative to new filings).
  • Potential reductions in local jail populations, as cases—especially criminal cases—are resolved more promptly.

Because many of these jurisdictions are experiencing population growth and complex dockets, new judges should also help:

  • manage the expansion of problem‑solving courts, and
  • handle interpreter‑intensive proceedings more efficiently.

B. Institutional impact on judicial administration

The opinion reinforces and refines several important institutional principles:

  1. Data‑driven decision‑making is primary
    • The Court’s repeated emphasis on the verified, objective weighted caseload methodology confirms that:
      • judicial need assessments must be empirically grounded, and
      • subjective impressions alone are insufficient to justify structural changes.
  2. Secondary factors remain indispensable
    • At the same time, the opinion underscores that local, practical considerations—resource constraints, population trends, geographic issues—cannot be ignored.
    • This preserves necessary flexibility and nuance in the application of the quantitative model.
  3. Incrementalism as a guiding policy
    • By once again taking an incremental approach, the Court signals that judgeship certification is a multi‑year, adaptive process rather than a one‑time correction.
  4. Reluctance to recommend reductions without robust evidence
    • The Court’s refusal to certify any decreases in trial judgeships, despite limited indications of surplus in some areas, suggests a high evidentiary threshold—and a preference for stability—before recommending structural downsizing.

C. Separation of powers and legislative–judicial dialogue

Under article V, section 9:

  • the Supreme Court is responsible for gathering data, applying uniform criteria, and making informed recommendations, while
  • the Legislature has the authority to accept, partially accept, or decline these recommendations and to appropriate funds accordingly.

This opinion:

  • acknowledges and compliments the Legislature’s actions in 2025 (authorizing 37 trial judgeships and addressing Second DCA surplus through attrition), and
  • frames the new certification as a continuation of that cooperative process.

This ongoing dialogue:

  • strengthens the practical legitimacy of the Court’s certifications,
  • helps ensure that judicial structure keeps pace with demographic and caseload trends, and
  • demonstrates a model of inter‑branch comity in addressing systemic governance issues.

D. Implications for future reductions in judicial positions

Although the Court did not certify any reductions at the trial level here, its analysis lays groundwork for how such reductions might be approached in future years:

  • Reductions would require:
    • clear, stable, multi‑year data showing sustained surplus capacity under the new case weights, and
    • supportive secondary factors (e.g., stable or declining population, manageable geography, no emerging complexity trends).
  • Any recommended reductions would likely be paired with:
    • attrition‑based implementation, mirroring the Second DCA approach, to avoid involuntary displacement of sitting judges.

Thus, even though no trial‑level reductions are recommended now, the opinion signals a framework under which such reductions could eventually be justified in a cautious, data‑driven way.

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. Weighted caseload methodology

What it is: A statistical model that estimates how many judges are needed by assigning a “weight” (time value) to each type of case.

  • Case weight = average time it takes a judge to handle one case of a given type, from start to finish (including hearings, trial, and orders).
  • Workload = case weight × number of cases filed (or decided).
  • Required judges = total workload ÷ amount of work one full‑time judge can reasonably do in a year.

This approach allows courts to compare judicial workload across circuits and counties in an apples‑to‑apples way, even if they have different mixes of criminal, civil, family, and other cases.

B. Full‑time‑equivalent (FTE) judges

What it means: An FTE judge is a unit of workload capacity. Think of it as “one judge working full‑time for one year.”

Example:

  • If a circuit’s total workload equals 15 FTE judges but it currently has only 12 judges:
    • the model would show a need for about three additional judges to keep up with the work.

C. Secondary factors

These are non‑numeric considerations that influence how much work judges actually face and how efficiently they can perform it, such as:

  • growth or decline in local population,
  • availability of case managers and interpreters,
  • geographic spread and number of courthouses,
  • presence of problem‑solving courts, and
  • complexity of typical cases.

They ensure that judicial staffing decisions are not made by data alone, but informed by on‑the‑ground experience.

D. Differentiated case management

Concept: Not all cases are alike. Some are simple and can move quickly; others are complex and need more time.

Differentiated case management is the process of:

  • screening cases early,
  • assigning them to different “tracks” (e.g., expedited, standard, complex), and
  • managing them on timelines appropriate to their track.

Case managers often assist judges with this process. If there are too few case managers or inadequate technology, judges spend more time on administrative tasks and less on resolving substantive disputes.

E. Problem‑solving courts

These are specialized courts (like drug courts or mental health courts) that:

  • focus on underlying issues contributing to criminal behavior (addiction, mental illness, etc.),
  • use treatment plans, close monitoring, and regular review hearings, and
  • require ongoing judicial interaction with participants.

Because judges in these courts do more than preside over one‑time trials or hearings, problem‑solving courts tend to increase judicial time per case.

F. Attrition‑based reduction of judgeships

Attrition means positions are eliminated when they become vacant (e.g., due to retirement, resignation, or death), rather than removing people who currently hold those positions.

In the Second DCA, the Legislature chose to:

  • reduce the number of authorized judgeships by attrition,
  • so the Court can move toward the appropriate structural size without forcing any current judge to leave prematurely.

VII. Conclusion and Key Takeaways

This opinion does not announce a new doctrinal rule in the usual sense, but it significantly shapes the governing framework for how Florida determines its judicial staffing. Several key themes emerge:

  • Data‑driven core, tempered by judgment. The Court confirms that a verified, objective weighted caseload methodology remains the primary standard for assessing judicial need, but it must be supplemented by secondary factors and by practical experience from local chief judges.
  • Incrementalism and fiscal realism. Even though the numbers show substantial need, the Court continues an incremental approach out of respect for the State’s fiscal constraints and the operational impacts on justice‑system partners.
  • Caution about reductions. The Court declines to recommend any reduction in trial court judgeships, emphasizing the need for stable, multi‑year evidence of surplus and the importance of geographic and complexity‑related factors.
  • Targeted expansion of trial court capacity. The certification of 25 additional trial judgeships, concentrated in high‑growth and high‑demand jurisdictions (notably the Twentieth Circuit and several populous counties), aims to improve timeliness, clearance rates, and jail populations.
  • Continued monitoring of appellate capacity. The Court finds no need for new DCA judgeships and supports the Legislature’s attrition‑based reduction of surplus positions in the Second DCA, while noting the full funding of the previously certified Sixth DCA judgeships.
  • Ongoing judicial–legislative collaboration. The opinion exemplifies the constitutional design in which the Supreme Court provides expert, empirically informed recommendations, and the Legislature responds through statutory and budgetary action.

In sum, In re: Certification of Need for Additional Judges (2025) strengthens Florida’s commitment to a measured, data‑centered, and context‑sensitive approach to structuring its judiciary. It underscores that ensuring adequate judicial capacity is not a one‑time project but a continuous process of assessment, adjustment, and inter‑branch coordination, driven by both numbers and nuanced understanding of how justice is administered on the ground.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Florida

Comments